When ḥattā or ilā sets a limit, two questions arise: how far the action extends, and whether the endpoint itself is included. The second cannot be answered universally by translating the particle as “until.”
Questions such as inclusion of the elbows in ablution require reading the wording alongside the legal subject, other evidence, and the applicable interpretive rule. “Ilā always excludes its endpoint” is an unsafe universalization.
Method: Identify the role of the endpoint and the structure of the prior rule, then assess the specific argument for including or excluding the boundary.